In a recent landmark judgment by the Delhi High Court, significant relief has been granted to the petitioners in the case involving the implications of the ART Act and reproductive autonomy. The court’s decision has paved the way for crucial discussions surrounding the rights of individuals seeking assisted reproductive technologies. Stay informed about the latest legal developments in this case where the petitioners’ rights are at the forefront of the proceedings.
Facts
- The Petitioners have been undergoing IVF treatments since 2011, with multiple attempts at different facilities.
- Despite their efforts, they have not been successful in having a child through IVF.
- The latest facility they consulted, Birla Fertility and IVF Centre, froze embryos in December 2022 when the wife was 44 years old and the husband was 54 years old.
- After unsuccessful embryo transfer attempts in March and June 2023, the facility refused further treatment to the Petitioners citing the husband’s age exceeding the limit of 55 years as per the ART Act.
- A representation to continue treatment sent to the concerned authority has not been considered, leading the Petitioners to file the present petition.
Arguments
- Petitioner argues that age restriction under the ART Act is irrational, arbitrary, and lacks scientific basis.
- Petitioner contends that the age restrictions go against the objective of the ART Act to assist infertile couples in becoming parents.
- Petitioners seek a declaration that Section 21(g) of the ART Act infringes their right to reproductive autonomy under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Analysis
- The High Court of Kerala reference the case of Nandini K and highlighted the relevance to the issue at hand.
- The judgment in the Nandini K case stated that couples who had initiated IVF treatment before 25th January 2022 should not be affected by the age prescription in the ART Act.
- The Court focused on Section 21(g) of the ART Act which specifies the age limit for couples seeking ART treatment.
- The Court recognized the emotional and psychological distress faced by the Petitioners due to the current situation.
- It was emphasized that preventing the continuation of ART services that had already started would be unreasonable and unjustified, going against the liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
- The judgment from the High Court of Kerala served as a precedent on the prospective applicability of existing provisions and supported the Petitioners’ argument.
- Considering the unique circumstances of this case and the Petitioners’ situation, the Court inclined towards granting interim relief while deliberating on the challenge to the validity of Section 4(iii)(c)(I) of the SR Act.
- Petitioner No 1 underwent egg retrieval and freezing in 2016-17, while Petitioner No 2’s sperm were frozen in 2021 before the enforcement of the SR Act and ART Act.
- The Court acknowledges the distress faced by the Petitioners and emphasizes the importance of granting them the opportunity to pursue parenthood, considering the embryos were created before the legal constraints came into effect.
- The Petitioners have expressed their intention to commission surrogacy through a woman meeting the eligibility criteria under Section 4(iii)(b) of the SR Act.
- Given the circumstances and the Petitioners’ earnest desire for parenthood, the Court is inclined to allow them to proceed with gestational surrogacy.
Decision
- Petitioners began IVF treatment before ART Act came into force
- Embryos were created when Petitioner No 2’s age was below limit under ART Act
- Petitioner No 1 remains eligible under ART Act
- Petitioners allowed to continue IVF process to prevent irreparable loss
- Listed for further hearing on 30 July, 2024
- Respondents given four weeks to file counter affidavit
- Rejoinder affidavit to be filed within two weeks after respondents
- Eligibility certificate to be issued to Petitioners for continuing with IVF from existing embryos
Case Title: MRS MAMTA KUMARI & ANR. Vs. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY & ORS. (2024:DHC:4314-DB)
Case Number: W.P.(C)-7565/2024
